What does it take to be a genius? Look no further than the enigmatic Dan Swanö, an exceptionally prominent figure in the world of metal, but that hardly counts. What counts is music which leaves an everlasting impression on the listener that cannot be easily erased. This is the criteria for a musical genius, and Dan Swanö has proven himself one. Case in point: Moontower.

Reviews are more subjective that musical talent, but an objective effort altogether. You should know this. Talk about a straw man approach

Pfft, if you were able to find anecdotal or empirical evidence that clashes with my arguments, I would back down. You've not provided any in each of our arguments. There is no sliding scale. Provide the evidence. When its anecdotal evidence vs. anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it, because your debating skills are lacking. Despite how many times you've attempted to accredit a straw man approach to my arguments, it seems you've a better grasp on its use

Sorry Troy, I just want to get a little Straw Man 101 in for Lekiwi. I'll be done after this, I promise.

Straw Man A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Ok, let's start with this:

Quote: Reviews are more subjective that musical talent, but an objective effort altogether. You should know this. Talk about a straw man approach

Right, what you have done here is create a fictitious scenario in which I (should) believe what you have posited (which I don't. I believe reviews can take many forms). Please tell me how this is a "straw man" approach? How have I "misrepresented your position?" At no point have I ever agreed to these definitions you've set out, so I fail to see how I could have done so. I can only conclude that you don't understand how to apply this logical fallacy to actual debate. The irony is that this statement is in effect a straw man argument in itself. You have magically put me in a position with some made-up rules that I have never been in and you have then refuted that fantasy version of me and my argument. Congratulations.

Now let's examine how you have committed a number of straw man fallacies in order to misrepresent me. Hopefully this might enlighten you in what a "straw man" actually is.

Quote: Wait a minute...you're among the users who perceive melodic death metal to be "overrated" on this website. How can such a notion exist if all votes are personal?

Here you have constructed a false identity for me in which you posit that I consider users on this site to "overrate" albums en masse. This is, naturally, quite false as I went on to highlight how I have given high ratings to many albums of the genre, and enjoy many of its albums. Despite me pointing this out and that you created a straw man version of my arguments you still used this as a springboard to a fallacious area of argument in which you attempted to draw a parallel between my personal tastes and how I feel about other people voting on albums. You attempted to allude that I think all votes should be in line with my own and in using terms like "overrated" I believe the votes different from my own are objectively wrong. This is false. Any comments I make in this regard are drawn from an "it's my opinion" trope. Your attempt to validate your claim by using semantics and giving me a dictionary definition of the meaning of "overrated" was once again erroneous as you insisted that the notion of "overrated" is objective, when it is not. To call something "overrated" in this context is derived from opinion and not necessarily objective. Thus my calling something overrated is not directly tied to your fallacious, straw man argument that I believe " ratings should reflect the appreciative qualities in the music to an extent." This is not so and has never been the case. That is your misrepresentation.

You said that:

Quote: I've used no such thing. You're in denial. Here's your argument in a nutshell.

This is a straw man fallacy. You have constructed a false argument in my stead. At no point have I made objective statements. I can even be quoted as saying "People are allowed to vote how they like (within reason; probably worth pointing out that Lekiwi's voting antics got his votes wiped a little while ago.)" Clearly, this highlights that I believe that ultimately people are allowed to vote how they like, as long as they keep within the rules. You are attempting to discredit me by accusing me of an hypocrisy that does not exist. All my arguments have stemmed from a personal belief that your voting method is disruptive to the overall voting patterns which I believe people adhere to, which when correctly, and honestly applied, gives an overall impression of what the consensus feel is good and bad. The fact I may personally consider certain ratings to be over or underrated is completely immaterial as I recently pointed out. This can, perhaps ironically, be summed up with the axiom "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." In this case I clearly mean people's votes. I don't always agree with them, but I agree with the system they are used in. I don't however agree with your system, yet, it is still my right to question you on that. Doing so does not make me a hypocrite, and I don't believe I've been inconsistent or ignorant in doing so. That's your point, which I find in keeping with a poorly executed ad hominem.

Furthermore:

Quote: Joe is conceited to believe that his perception of the valid correlation between review rating and votes overshadows that of other staff reviewers. So, to answer your question: yes.

Another straw man fallacy. Here you have painted me in the light of someone who believes that my opinions on the relation between review scores and personal votes are above other staff's. Where have I ever said that? I stated that a good reviewer would be able to distinguish well between a personal rating and a good review with a strong element of objectivity. I also said that there aren't many good reviewers. Of course, I never said I was one of those reviewers. You have opted to misrepresent me by suggesting that I did say that and that I believe my opinion towers above others. This is a classic argument you seem to fall back on.

Another quote taken from the wiki page of Straw Man Argument:

Quote:In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

I honestly can't think of a more succinct description of your arguments, which invariably end with you touting victory over arguments which were never made. As I've pointed out before you have an amazing ability to make arguments go round in circles by changing the nature of them at various points so it gets to the point that the original argument has long been lost. When the other person gets to this point you deftly regale everyone with "I have provided proof and you haven't!" and other such rhetoric and the entire discussion becomes a tiresome roundabout where you will take any fake, straw man victory as you "winning" the debate.

Of course the greatest thing about discussion is that one does not need to be told when they have or haven't won or lost it. Arguments stand for themselves for those that read it. Your need to be the last one commenting doesn't reinforce anything you have said. It just shows that you need to be the last one to comment.

Right, what you have done here is create a fictitious scenario in which I (should) believe what you have posited (which I don't. I believe reviews can take many forms). Please tell me how this is a "straw man" approach? How have I "misrepresented your position?" At no point have I ever agreed to these definitions you've set out, so I fail to see how I could have done so. I can only conclude that you don't understand how to apply this logical fallacy to actual debate. The irony is that this statement is in effect a straw man argument in itself. You have magically put me in a position with some made-up rules that I have never been in and you have then refuted that fantasy version of me and my argument. Congratulations.

This was a very simply notion. There was a three-way argument. You put words in my mouth regarding my perception of reviews and subsequently debunked my position without giving me the opportunity to respond. That is a straw man approach. If you don't see that, you need to stop using the fallacy terminology...you're embarrassing yourself with your conceited posturing.

Quote:

Now let's examine how you have committed a number of straw man fallacies in order to misrepresent me.

You have numerous detracting posts scattered throughout the website with regards to the quality of melodeath, so this is not a baseless claim. For instance, take your quote on Dark Tranquility's The Gallery. Your post is in concordance with the fact that being overrated is associated with a particular score (a 7 being too high as indicated by your post.) Hence, stating that an album is overrated implies that the overall score is above what you believe it deserves. It is you in truth who have constructed another straw man, stating that I have alluded that you believe that others should to adhere to anyone's voting principles, including your own - I have never stated this. I said that your arguments were inconsistent. Claiming an album is overrated is a highly objective remark. This is a simple notion: it means you cannot fathom how the album has received the rating it has. Really? The only reason you would state that is because you believe the album is devoid of the merits that are consistent with a higher rating. Merits are what constitute a rating. Thus, my argument - no straw man to be found on my front...only yours.

Quote:I stated that a good reviewer would be able to distinguish well between a personal rating and a good review with a strong element of objectivity. I also said that there aren't many good reviewers. Of course, I never said I was one of those reviewers. You have opted to misrepresent me by suggesting that I did say that and that I believe my opinion towers above others. This is a classic argument you seem to fall back on.

Where did you say that What you said is that a good reviewer's personal ratings would never reflect their review score. Every staff member whose ratings and reviews I have examined showed a positive correlation between the two items. This means that you view these staff as not "good reviewers." Surely you who insists on such principals would adhere to them. Surely not...hypocrisy

Quote:In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

You have continuously failed to provide any proof of any sort (and I'm not referring to this argument, I'm referring to the others you have so kindly rekindled.) The justification for my final comments is to respond to your desperate, last ditched endeavors at debunking my arguments as a result of "ad nauseam" and your unscrupulous and disrespectful attempts to paint me in bad light. You write your comments in a manner that warrant a response, despite how subtle your insults and detracting remarks may be.

Edit: Found this when E.Mol posted a link to Slumber's Fallout and thought it was quite insightful. I find it astounding that you lied just to embarrass me...pathetic.

Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 29.10.2011 at 15:35Any kind of melodic doom or melodeath gets absurdly high scores these days.